GM's EV1 rises from the dead
10-30-2008, 09:34 AM
#4
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,346
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
They're rather amusing cars to drive. We had one at work (where a lot of the electrical design work was done at), and you could check it out for the weekend. Tons of low end torque (it would probably do quite well at streetlight drags if one was so inclined, although battery charge duration takes a serious hit with that sort of activity). The only uncomfortable thing was the habitual thought that "I killed the engine" at every stop light, because there wasn't any engine noise or vibration. If the price (and maintenance cost) was right, I'd have an electrical car in a heartbeat.
ps: The EV gang sign comment was hilarious.
ps: The EV gang sign comment was hilarious.
10-30-2008, 12:27 PM
#5
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,078
Received 8,919 Likes
on
5,328 Posts
Despite all the comments about GM killing the electric car it wasn't them that killed it. Consumers killed it since they didn't rent it in sufficient numbers or any of the competitive electric cars from the other automakers at the time. Lack of range, cost and other factors doomed the cars. California pushed the requirement for electric cars on the automakers and the public long before electric cars were feasible in our current society where we practically live in our cars.
Bill
Bill
10-30-2008, 04:30 PM
#6
Melting Slicks
Despite all the comments about GM killing the electric car it wasn't them that killed it. Consumers killed it since they didn't rent it in sufficient numbers or any of the competitive electric cars from the other automakers at the time. Lack of range, cost and other factors doomed the cars. California pushed the requirement for electric cars on the automakers and the public long before electric cars were feasible in our current society where we practically live in our cars.
Bill
Bill
10-30-2008, 07:21 PM
#7
Most stoplight races are over by the time you hit 40 mph, so having something quick off the line, even if it's not fast on the top end, will probably win most races.
11-02-2008, 10:25 AM
#9
Le Mans Master
Led Zeppelin and electric cars? Blasphemy! I guess this is what it all comes down to huh...this is where we are? Yes sir, I want the lamest car every made, slow as you can make it, small, takes all night to charge it...if you forget to plug it in, too bad. I want it small, and heavy, ugly as sin, but I want to really impress my 8 year old ecologist.
Hey we all might have to use electric cars one day, but DAMMIT don't act or pretend to be happy about it at the very least please.
Right now 7 liters of pure gluttony as long as it will last for me!
Hey we all might have to use electric cars one day, but DAMMIT don't act or pretend to be happy about it at the very least please.
Right now 7 liters of pure gluttony as long as it will last for me!
11-02-2008, 12:57 PM
#10
Led Zeppelin and electric cars? Blasphemy! I guess this is what it all comes down to huh...this is where we are? Yes sir, I want the lamest car every made, slow as you can make it, small, takes all night to charge it...if you forget to plug it in, too bad. I want it small, and heavy, ugly as sin, but I want to really impress my 8 year old ecologist.
Hey we all might have to use electric cars one day, but DAMMIT don't act or pretend to be happy about it at the very least please.
Right now 7 liters of pure gluttony as long as it will last for me!
Hey we all might have to use electric cars one day, but DAMMIT don't act or pretend to be happy about it at the very least please.
Right now 7 liters of pure gluttony as long as it will last for me!
The EV1 is ten years old. There wasn't much that GM made back then other than the Corvette that looked decent IMO. Besides, part of the EV1's styling was because of aerodynamics. When you put aero in front of style, you often don't get something that is pleasing to the eye.
There are modern electric cars that are faster than your 7 liters of pure gluttony. Isn't gluttony one of the seven deadly sins?
I like technology and I find electric cars fascinating especially when you look at electric performance cars. F1 and the Le Mans series are even investing in hybrid technology. Look at what auto racing has already done for clean diesels. The Audi R10 is fantastic and it's making better, higher performing diesels for road use that don't make noise, don't smell and don't smoke. Would you have ever thought that a diesel would be a potential powerplant for a sports car?
OTOH, look at what NASCAR has done for the auto industry. They still use carburetors and just stopped using leaded gas a couple of years ago.
That's the kind of backwards thinking that put GM and Chrysler in jeopardy. NASCAR is emblematic of right wing America.The reason why you are mad about people "having" to drive electric cars one day is the reason why I'm pushing for biofuels. What I love about biofuels is that we can use the fuel in what we have right now.
I'd love to see a mix of technologies for cars in the future. Some using all electric. Some using hybrid. Some using biofuels. Some using a combination of all of the above.
11-02-2008, 01:27 PM
#11
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,596
Received 238 Likes
on
166 Posts
I like energy recovery systems.
We spend all this time & $$$ trying to make horsepower only to send it off to the atmosphere with the brakes in the form of heat before we enter a corner!
We spend all this time & $$$ trying to make horsepower only to send it off to the atmosphere with the brakes in the form of heat before we enter a corner!
11-02-2008, 01:29 PM
#12
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,078
Received 8,919 Likes
on
5,328 Posts
Bill
11-02-2008, 04:47 PM
#13
And what does that have to do with the reason they had to do that? California mandated those cars should exist before the technology was in place to make them practical. The consumer spoke and they did not want those cars. Nobody wanted to get stuck on the freeway without power. In the Northeast where New York tried to mandate them wiser people kept that from happening. Imagine trying to drive and heat your car with the limited power stored on board. Range would have been a lot less than 40 miles. Sure there may have been a few flakes that wanted the left overs but none of the other electric cars on the market at that time survived either. Is GM responsible for killing them off as well? If you believe that you may as well believe GM is responsible for the Phillies winning the World Series.
Bill
Bill
I don't think that GM was directly responsible for killing off the CARB mandate. I honestly believe that the oil companies were behind it. They most likely gave money to the auto industry to help put pressure on CARB to kill the mandate. They even bought patents for NiMH batteries so they couldn't be used in the electric car to make it a more viable option. The NiMH batteries would've made the car a lot lighter and would've given it extended range.
The oil companies want to pretend that they care, so they promise us a technology that they'll never have to deliver on. This is currently hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. It will never be a viable technology and the oil companies know it. As long as they dangle that carrot in front of us and never deliver, we'll continue to use cars that run on fossil fuel.
Just imagine if GM would've stuck with the EV1 and continued developing it. They already paid out all that money for development (half of it was subsidized by the government). Imagine if they spent the money for hydrogen fuel cell cars on battery technology instead. GM might be leading the industry right now instead of being on life support.
What I think is going to happen right now is that the technology for EV's are eventually going to come out of Asia. That's too bad because it could've easily come out of the US and would've been another industry that we could've been a leader in.
11-02-2008, 08:01 PM
#15
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,346
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
......................
I don't think that GM was directly responsible for killing off the CARB mandate. I honestly believe that the oil companies were behind it. They most likely gave money to the auto industry to help put pressure on CARB to kill the mandate. ......................
I don't think that GM was directly responsible for killing off the CARB mandate. I honestly believe that the oil companies were behind it. They most likely gave money to the auto industry to help put pressure on CARB to kill the mandate. ......................
11-02-2008, 08:04 PM
#16
That's just a PR commercial to try and make us feel warm and fuzzy about GM. Much like the oil company commercials that talk about alternative energy sources like wind and solar. Do you really think that the oil companies want us to invest in wind and solar?
11-03-2008, 01:25 AM
#18
Race Director
Why dont we just go back to using horses and wagons.
They are cheaper than any modern attempt at an electric car, more reliable, longer range, quicker to "recharge" and easier to manufacture - oh, and are pretty much 100% "green".
I am pretty sure one could cross Texas with a stage coach faster than you could in an electric car... what with the 50 mile range and hours to recharge all the time
They are cheaper than any modern attempt at an electric car, more reliable, longer range, quicker to "recharge" and easier to manufacture - oh, and are pretty much 100% "green".
I am pretty sure one could cross Texas with a stage coach faster than you could in an electric car... what with the 50 mile range and hours to recharge all the time
11-03-2008, 10:06 AM
#19
Melting Slicks
And what does that have to do with the reason they had to do that? California mandated those cars should exist before the technology was in place to make them practical. The consumer spoke and they did not want those cars. Nobody wanted to get stuck on the freeway without power. In the Northeast where New York tried to mandate them wiser people kept that from happening. Imagine trying to drive and heat your car with the limited power stored on board. Range would have been a lot less than 40 miles. Sure there may have been a few flakes that wanted the left overs but none of the other electric cars on the market at that time survived either. Is GM responsible for killing them off as well? If you believe that you may as well believe GM is responsible for the Phillies winning the World Series.Bill
2. They killed them for a variety of reasons, but they mainly want to sell high maintenace vehicles (high sell and maintenance profits), with zero money invested for alternative power sources.
3. Plus, if most people dont care about a) supporting the muslim type terroist countries that hate us or b)the environment ("the consumer spoke"), GM certainly wont. Thats why we need laws.
4. If you dont think GM killed them, your misguided like most.
PS: I like and want my 620 HP fire breathing 427 ZR1. But if this country had its act together years ago, Id be towing it to the track and commuting to work in a vehicle that doesnt burn fossil fuel with zero emissions.
11-03-2008, 11:02 AM
#20
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,346
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
1. Madating is how techonlogy starts and expands. Government mandates are an inefficient, and usually expensive, way to push technology. Does the ethanol mandate ring a bell?2. They killed them for a variety of reasons, but they mainly want to sell high maintenace vehicles (high sell and maintenance profits), with zero money invested for alternative power sources. GM is in the car business, not the alternative power business. Unless a product returns a profit, it is the responsibility of management to kill that project to protect the shareholders, the owners of the company whose money is at risk with non-profitable endeavours.
3. Plus, if most people dont care about a) supporting the muslim type terroist countries that hate us or b)the environment ("the consumer spoke"), GM certainly wont. Thats why we need laws. Your liberal friends have been making laws for years, preventing us from building nuclear plants or drilling more in this country. Government is the problem, not the cure. And, also the primary reason your "fire breather" is burning foreign oil.4. If you dont think GM killed them, your misguided like most.
PS: I like and want my 620 HP fire breathing 427 ZR1. But if this country had its act together years ago, Id be towing it to the track and commuting to work in a vehicle that doesnt burn fossil fuel with zero emissions.
3. Plus, if most people dont care about a) supporting the muslim type terroist countries that hate us or b)the environment ("the consumer spoke"), GM certainly wont. Thats why we need laws. Your liberal friends have been making laws for years, preventing us from building nuclear plants or drilling more in this country. Government is the problem, not the cure. And, also the primary reason your "fire breather" is burning foreign oil.4. If you dont think GM killed them, your misguided like most.
PS: I like and want my 620 HP fire breathing 427 ZR1. But if this country had its act together years ago, Id be towing it to the track and commuting to work in a vehicle that doesnt burn fossil fuel with zero emissions.
ps: How about putting in some punctuation in your post on occasion?